Do you think someone receiving assistance should continue to have children?

[CEDmom]

I know this is a touchy subject but it's something that really irks me. I have nothing against helping people in need who are doing all they can to help themselves. However, continuing to have children while receiving assistance of any kind is completely irresponsible IMO.

DH and I have 1 child because we feel that's all we can comfortably manage emotionally, physically and financially. Expecting assistance of any kind if we were to choose to have another is wrong and almost theft in my mind.

 

[cardaway]

I know this is a touchy subject but it's something that really irks me. I have nothing against helping people in need who are doing all they can to help themselves. However, continuing to have children while receiving assistance of any kind is completely irresponsible IMO.

DH and I have 1 child because we feel that's all we can comfortably manage emotionally, physically and financially. Expecting assistance of any kind if we were to choose to have another is wrong and almost theft in my mind.

IMO the answer is a very clear NO. I would be happy to see the laws change that keep it from happening, and then watch the number of pregnancies dive when people know there will be no increase coming.

 

[TimeforMe]

ITA and that's why DH and I stopped at 2. I wanted to be able to provide them with our time, energy, financial support as best we could. For us, having more than 2 would have made that much more difficult.

 

[pjb_hockey_mom]

No.

 

[Disney Doll]

No

 

[WDWFAN9]

No, but if they do the amount of assistance should not increase. In the real world of employment you don't get a raise every time you have a child!

 

[Toby'sFriend]

no
and I also don't think that people capable of working should receive assistance for very long if they aren't working at all -- 6 months to a year. Get up off your couch and go get a job.

I also don't think people who have money for non-essential items such as vacations or cigarettes should receive food or housing assistance.

I personally would be quite ashamed to accept charity from somebody else for something like food or housing, and then turn around and spend my money on a trip.

There are alot of things that I think that piss people off.

 

[freckles and boo]

Of course they shouldn't continue to have children they can't afford. Nobody should. But solving that proplem requires a huge culture shift, not simply legislation. It is a slippery slope when the government starts punishing poor people for reproducing.

 

[Ready to go in Ok]

So who gets to decide who is worthy of having children? The government? I think the system is definitely flawed, but dictating to people when they can and cannot have children is one of the scariest attitudes I have seen.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

I don't think it's punishing someone for reproducing. It's really not rewarding someone for being a slacker.

 

[Liberty Belle]

No, I don't think they should, especially if they're going for more than a second one. But the children shouldn't have to suffer.

 

[aprilgail2]

I had one because that is how many I can afford to care for and put through college and still keep within my comfort zone. I think if someone is getting public assistance and chooses to have more children then all assistance should be cut off-that may keep a few from keep having kids that the taxpayers are supporting!

 

[Toby'sFriend]

So who gets to decide who is worthy of having children? The government? I think the system is definitely flawed, but dictating to people when they can and cannot have children is one of the scariest attitudes I have seen.

I'm not dictating to anybody how many children they can have.

Pull a Dugger and have 17 of them if you want to.

Just, if you go running to the taxpayers after 3 claiming you can't afford to feed, clothe, and house them, don't go acting all shocked when other people aren't all that crazy about having to feed, dress, and house numbers 4 thru 17 for you.

 

[CJMickeyMouse]

IMO those that cannot provide for children should not have them.

 

[Ready to go in Ok]

I had one because that is how many I can afford to care for and put through college and still keep within my comfort zone. I think if someone is getting public assistance and chooses to have more children then all assistance should be cut off-that may keep a few from keep having kids that the taxpayers are supporting!

The reality is, you would have a ton of starving children. Welfare reform was supposed to do this. Didn't work. I think putting more money into education makes much more sense, but it's not a quick fix.

 

[teacherforhi]

So who gets to decide who is worthy of having children? The government? I think the system is definitely flawed, but dictating to people when they can and cannot have children is one of the scariest attitudes I have seen.

It's not that the government says you can't have children. It's saying that if you've gone to the government and asked for assistance in living, then you should not have any more while you are living on the public dole. It's two different situations entirely, at least in my mind.

 

[poohandwendy]

IMO the answer is a very clear NO. I would be happy to see the laws change that keep it from happening, and then watch the number of pregnancies dive when people know there will be no increase coming.

I could not agree more.

 

[summerrluvv]

Do you really think anyone is going to answer "yes" to this?

Don't debates like this always end terribly on the DIS?

Didn't the government cap the amount of time that someone can receive public assistance? Thus making it not possible for someone to keep having children and keep getting money (although I thought they did away with the money thing).

 

[poohandwendy]

So who gets to decide who is worthy of having children? The government? I think the system is definitely flawed, but dictating to people when they can and cannot have children is one of the scariest attitudes I have seen.

Oh, they can have as many as they want. They just should not be offered assistance for continuing to have children when they cannot afford them. (they meaning people who are receiving govt assistance)

 

[hentob]

So who gets to decide who is worthy of having children?

If you cannot feed your current children, you certainly are not "worthy" of having another

Why on earth would anyone have another baby if they can't care for the ones they have?